Michael B. Williams v. BRUCE COLEMAN, Vocational Supervisor at Coalinga State Hospital

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Williams consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28**
U.S.C. § 636(c).
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision***
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL B. WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
BRUCE COLEMAN, Vocational
Supervisor at Coalinga State Hospital;
GABRIEL DIAZ, Vocational Services
Assignment Supervisor at Coalinga State
Hospital,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 13-15082
D.C. No. 1:11-cv-01189-GBC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Gerald B. Cohn, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted July 24, 2013***
Before: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
FILED
AUG 02 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

13-15082 2
Michael B. Williams, a civil detainee confined at Coalinga State Hospital
pursuant to California’s Sexually Violent Predator Act, appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging that defendants violated the
Thirteenth Amendment and the Fair Labor Standards Act. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000),
and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.
1998) (order). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Williams’s action because the
allegations in his amended complaint did not “contain[ ] enough facts to state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42
(9th Cir. 2010) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also U.S.
Const. amend. XIII, § 1 (prohibiting involuntarily servitude); Gilbreath v. Cutter
Biological, Inc., 931 F.2d 1320, 1324-25 (9th Cir. 1991) (discussing economic
reality test to consider for determining whether an employer-employee relationship
exists).
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).

-- 2 of 3 --

13-15082 3
Williams’s motion filed on March 6, 2013 is denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --